About your Search

20130219
20130219
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
at a news conference on benghazi. mccain was addressing the republican tactic of filibustering the hagel confirmation to get more answers on benghazi. >> there are other questions that need to be answered, and we feel that the intervening week and a half almost is sufficient time to get those questions answered. >> so from that comment right there to "meet the press," something must have happened, because mccain wasn't talking about a massive cover-up there. in fact, he seems confident that the questions will get answered. even in his interview with david gregory yesterday, mccain admitted the filibuster of hagel would end. >> but he will be confirmed, and we will have a vote when we get back, and i'm confident that senator hagel will probably have the votes necessary to be confirmed as the secretary of defense. >> round and round and -- it just doesn't seem to add up, does it? if mccain is filibustering hagel to get answers on benghazi, and if mccain claims there is a massive cover-up, then why would mccain allow the hagel vote to move forward after a week and a half? well, time's up. c
testified. they are holding up hagel's confirmation because they would like more information about benghazi like while the president call the individuals involved while it was going on? i think. i did not prepare for this so i'm not sure. >> you know, jon, there's been some 20 briefings of members and staff. there's ten hearings on this topic and 10,000 documents, more than 10,000 documents provided to congress. there's ample opportunities to understand what is going on. >> jon: can i tell you the problem? too many documents. >> maybe. >> jon: here is my opinion. there's an undercountry of what the -- undercurrent from the republicans that suggests a malevolent of this. here is what strikes me as odd. you get talking points on november 16. patreaus told congress the c.i.a. didn't change the talking points. white house and state said they didn't do it. white house told the news changes were made because they pt didn't want al qaeda tipped off and the director of national intelligence said they made the changes because the al qaeda links were too tenuous. then they said the f.b.i. did it and
-- >> can i just say one final thing on this point. chuck hagel in his confirmation hearing the other day said, when he was pressed by mccain, history will make the judgment on the iraq war and whether it was a good thing or a bad thing or the end product. but the verdict of history is already in on the selling of the war. that's the focus of this film and i think -- >> another key point. you asked a good question. why didn't it work? one reason is they weren't prepared. we go into this in the book. it's not part of the documentary as much, but what would happen after the invasion? they thought it would all happen by magic. what you might call hubris and arrogance that the world would fall into place according to the neocon vision, and they put no thought into what it would mean for iraqis. 100,000 were killed. >> it means a chance for shia to fight sunni. thank you, guys. david corn, michael isikoff, the brains behind this great documentary that rachel maddow will present to you, "hubris, the selling of the iraq war." there is no better thing to do tonight than to watch this thing. >>> u
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)